Sir Gilbert Elliot’s account of the interviews between the King and his Ministers, just before the removal of Mr. Grenville, corresponds generally with Walpole’s narrative. It proves how reluctantly the King gave up Mr. Mackenzie. His Majesty, indeed, did not yield until he was driven to an unconditional surrender; and, after appealing in vain to Mr. Grenville’s sense of honour, in obliging him to depart from the engagement he had made to Mr. Mackenzie, he used these expressions, “I will not throw my kingdoms into confusion; you force me to break my word, and you must be responsible for the consequences.” The indignation felt by his Majesty on this occasion, he took no pains to conceal. The Duke of Bedford’s remonstrance, strong as it may have been, certainly did not irritate the King to the extent that Walpole has stated, or Sir Gilbert Elliot would have commented on it severely, which he has not done. The only reply made by the King to the Duke’s demand of additional confidence was, “that the confidence necessary for the despatch of business, he had given them; as to favour, they had not taken the way to merit it.”[219]--E. IV. LIBEL ON THE KING OF SPAIN. TO THE EDITOR OF “THE LONDON MAGAZINE.” SIR, A Letter in one of our public prints, reflecting upon his Catholic Majesty, being everywhere mentioned as the principal cause of an apprehended war with Spain, I have sent you that celebrated production for the entertainment of your readers, as it is extremely difficult to meet with a genuine copy, and as a spurious paper may possibly be foisted on the world without the interposition of _official_ authority. I am, Sir, &c., A CLERK IN OFFICE. _The imputed Libel on the King of Spain, said to be a principal Cause of the apprehended War, as it was complained of by the Spanish Ambassador to the Secretary of State._ TO THE GAZETTEER. Your correspondent Seneca seems mightily pleased with the _bon-mot_ of G---- the Second. I agree with him, there is a good deal of humour in it, but a _bon-mot_, before it can be fully allowed as such, ought to be founded strictly in truth. If G---- the Second’s _bon-mot_ is relative only to the unwise of the House of B----k that were born before the commencement of the present century, or that were born in Germany, it may probably have truth for its foundation. But I would start even the Duke of C---- against any one of the three crowned heads of the Bourbon family. There seems to be a distinct climax amongst their three Bourbonian Majesties. The King of Sicily’s eldest brother, we all know, was put aside from the throne because he was an absolute, irrecoverable idiot; his present Majesty of Sicily is, I conceive, just one remove from his brother. The next crowned head of the Bourbon family, I mean the King of Spain, may be allowed to be one remove and a half from his Sicilian Majesty, if weighed in the scale of intelligent or intellectual beings.